See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/365762633

From Resistance to Change: Processes for Change Within an Organization?

Chapter · January 2022

DOI: 10.23865/noasp.179.ch11

CITATIONS READS

0 38

3 authors, including:

Lotta Snickare Eva Amundsdotter

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm University
29 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lotta Snickare on 30 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

chapter 11

From Resistance to Change:

Processes for Change Within
an Organization?
Lotta Snickare
University of Oslo

Eva Amundsdotter
Stockholm university

Øystein Gullvåg Holter

University of Oslo

Abstract: Management is often identified as the key to success when changing an

organization. In chapter ten, the role of the management team in gender equality
work is analysed, as well as what the team needs in order to address these issues.
But has the faculty management team’s commitment to gender equality work had
any effects on the organization? Has the discourse changed? Are things done differ-
ently? This chapter analyzes the effects of the management team’s efforts by studying
a seminar series for PhD supervisors. The series consists of two parts: five seminars
before the management team embarked on gender equality work, and seven semi-
nars after. The data show that when the management team clearly stated that gender-
related challenges remained within the faculty and offered a theoretical approach and
method for the organization’s gender equality work, the seminar discussions moved
from resistance, denial and ambivalence, to an interest in understanding one’s own
role and potential for improving gender equality. When the management team con-
tributed to the knowledge base through education in gender perspectives and offered
a method for the organizational work that all employees could apply in their every-
day activities, this opened opportunities for change at all levels in the organization.

Keywords: gender equality, resistance, supervising, organizational change, academia

Citation: Snickare, L., Amundsdotter, E. & Holter, Ø. G. (2022). From resistance to change: Processes
for change within an organization? In Ø. G. Holter & L. Snickare (Eds.), Gender equality in academia
– from knowledge to change (Ch. 11, pp. 323–348). Cappelen Damm Akademisk. https://doi.org/10.23865/
noasp.179.ch11
Licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

323
chapter 11

This chapter explores whether, and if so how, a management team’s work

on gender equality impacts the organization. In the previous chapter,
we discussed how the management team at the Faculty of Mathematics
and Natural Sciences in Oslo University approached the issue of gender
equality. Was anything achieved? Has the resistance to gender equality
increased or decreased in the organization? Was anything changed in the
implementation of other parts of the FRONT project?
Our analysis is based on material from a workshop series for doctoral
student supervisors, where the aim was to encourage research manage-
ment on all levels to engage in gender equality work. The 5-hour work-
shops were held on twelve occasions for groups of 25–30 participants.
Supervision of doctoral students is a common point of reference, and is
something that researchers undertake throughout their career. A work-
shop on gender equality for those supervising doctoral students was there-
fore considered to be a good starting point in the efforts to change the
faculty’s culture.
The chapter is structured as follows: We begin with a short summary
of research on resistance to gender equality work. Next, we describe how
the workshops for doctoral student supervisors were carried out, and how
the data we analyze was gathered. The main part of the chapter focuses on
describing the change that took place in the groups, using two scenes: one
from one of the first and one from one of the last workshops respectively.
Finally, we analyze and discuss our results in light of other research.

Gender Equality Work: Resistance and Change

Gender equality work can be described as a complex development pro-
cess aimed at changing an organization’s structure and culture, thereby
influencing the scope of action and power relationships of individu-
als and groups (e.g., Andersson et al., 2012; Cockburn, 1991; Lindholm,
2011; Pincus, 1997; Spets, 2012; Wahl et al., 2001/2018). This process often
encounters resistance (Amundsdotter et al., 2015; Lindholm, 2011; Spets,
2012; Wahl et al., 2001/2018). Some of this resistance can resemble the
scepticism that may affect social innovation in general, regardless of
whether it relates to gender or other issues. Innovation challenges habitual

324
 f r o m r e s i s ta n c e to c h a n g e

approaches and expertise, and organizations often suffer from iner-

tia, even when it comes to constructive innovation and reform (Holter,
2007; Puchert et al., 2005). Feminist research, however, shows that gender
equality work also encounters other forms of resistance, since the pro-
cess challenges the organization’s existing power structures (Ahmed,
2012), and how individuals perceive themselves and their identity as
women or men (Acker, 1994, 1999; Hård, 2004; Jutterdal, 2008). Women’s
identity construction contains strategies of dealing with belonging to a
socially subordinated group (Ethelberg, 1985), whereas men’s strategies
consequently involve belonging to a superior group. Women often opt
to handle subordination using one of four strategies: denial, acceptance,
exploitation or change. The first three can thus be seen as expressions of
resistance to gender equality work (Wahl, 1992).
Resistance to gender equality is defined as resistance to change towards
greater equality and wanting to maintain the status quo, as opposed to,
say, resistance to a dominant social order, where resistance strives to effect
change (Lombardo & Mergaert, 2013). This resistance can be described as
actions to prevent gender equality work (Cockburn, 1991; Pincus, 1997;
Spets, 2012; Wahl et al., 2001/2018). Pincus (2002) defines acts of resis-
tance as passive or active, where passive resistance is most common.
Passive resistance can be expressed as lack of interest, withholding of
resources and “silence”, for instance by forgetting gender equality work
or silencing gender equality issues.1 Passive resistance can become active
if change intensifies. Active forms of resistance include openly question-
ing the process or the legitimacy of its representatives.
Lombardo and Mergaert (2013) describe how resistance can be
expressed by prioritizing certain tasks within the organization. Gender
equality work is highlighted as important, but is put on the back burner
for the sake of more important tasks, such as core activities. In Norwegian
research, this is described as the duty to yield (Skjeie & Teigen, 2003) –
meaning when different perspectives or priorities are compared, gender
equality is sacrificed (Skjeie in Haugsvær, 2003; see also NOU, 2011:13,
2012:15).
Different ideas on what gender equality work should achieve, and how
it should be carried out in an organization, can be seen as another form

325
chapter 11

of resistance (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010; Magnusson et al., 2008). An ambi-

tion to achieve gender equality is expressed without initiating a concerted
and focused project, which leads to nothing being accomplished within
the organization (Lombardo et al., 2009). Change can only be achieved if
there is an understanding of where and how gender inequality arises in
the organization, and what the problem is (Rönnblom, 2011; Tollin, 2011).
Different, and sometimes unclear, perceptions of why gender equality
work is needed may result in the focus of the project being deflected from
the desired change to the methods and tools to be used (Amundsdotter
et al., 2015). This focus on methods and tools can be interpreted as yet
another expression of resistance (Fraser, 2011).
Lack of knowledge is often considered an obstacle to gender equal-
ity, and projects therefore frequently include training aimed at enhanc-
ing awareness of inequality within the organization (e.g., Ahmed, 2017;
Amundsdotter et al., 2015; Höök, 2001). Studies show, however, that
increased awareness does not automatically lead to increased gender
equality (Nilsson & Trollvik, 2011). On the contrary, awareness can lead
to more qualified resistance to the organization’s gender equality work
(SOU, 2003:16). Rönnblom (2011) furthermore claims that a focus on rais-
ing awareness of gender inequality can be seen as a resistance strategy in
itself, since the lack of awareness, rather than gender inequality per se, is
identified as the problem that needs solving.
Amundsdotter et al. (2015) describe resistance to gender equality as a
counter-influence to the influence exerted by the gender equality work,
defining three forms of power techniques, or relationships between power
and resistance: repressive, pastoral and regulating (see also Linghag et al.,
2016). Repressive forms are distinct and direct. They consist, for instance,
in openly questioning the gender equality process, or ridiculing or belit-
tling the person in charge of the gender equality work. Pastoral resistance
is more subtle. The gender equality worker is expected to understand
that the organization knows that gender equality is important, but that
other priorities must be made at present. Regulating resistance entails,
for instance, claiming that the mandate to implement the gender equal-
ity initiative lies elsewhere, beyond the individual, group or organization
where it is currently taking place.

326
 f r o m r e s i s ta n c e to c h a n g e

Different types of transformation processes provoke different types

of resistance. In other words, resistance adapts to the process of change
(Benschop & Verloo, 2006; Kirton & Greene, 2000,2016; Lombardo &
Mergaert, 2013; Pincus, 2002). But the transformation process is also
influenced by the resistance. In a study of how gender equality work-
ers respond to resistance, the gender equality workers discovered that
they themselves were influenced by the resistance they encountered.
Repressive resistance, for instance, was often met with repressive strate-
gies (Amundsdotter et al., 2015).
As described earlier, gender equality work often meets with resis-
tance. Although management commitment is pointed out as being cru-
cial for gender equality work to be successful (e.g., Acker, 2000; Franzén
et al., 2010; Lombardo & Mergaert, 2013; NOU, 2012:15; Pincus, 1997;
SOU, 2003:16; Åberg, 2012), few studies have been dedicated to finding
out if – and how – the efforts of management teams affect resistance
in the organization. The question we will examine and discuss in this
chapter is whether the gender equality work of the faculty’s management
team has had any effect within the organization. We have chosen to
do this by analyzing how resistance within groups participating in
another part of the FRONT project, a workshop for doctoral student
supervisors, changed.

Workshops, Empirical Data and Method

The purpose of the workshops was both to increase the participants’
awareness of gender inequality in the organization, and to provide an
opportunity for them to share their experiences and thoughts. Reflecting
on one’s own experiences and those of others, in combination with
research-based knowledge, is one way of developing an understanding
of how gender is done,2 in one’s own organization and in academia in
general. The workshops alternated between group discussions and short
lectures in the research field of gender and organization. The purpose of
the group discussions was to offer participants opportunities to scruti-
nize their own experiences as supervisors, relating to research on gender
equality in academia.

327
chapter 11

Each workshop had 25 to 30 participants, divided into groups of

five. The smaller groups mixed participants from different depart-
ments, to elevate the discussion from a specific research team to the
faculty level. All supervising doctoral students were invited to the
12 workshops.
Workshop activities were inspired by the action research methodol-
ogy described in detail in the introduction to Part 3 of this book. They
were planned and carried out by the FRONT research team. One of the
researchers participated in all workshops, while others participated in
parts of the series. The researcher who participated in all the workshops
has been employed by the same organization as the participants, but in a
different capacity, and can thus be described as an outsider within (Herr &
Andersson, 2005). Other researchers in the group can be described either
as insiders, that is employed by the same organization and in the same
capacity as the participants; or as outsiders, if they were only partially
involved in the series and were not employed by the organization (Herr &
Andersson, 2005).3 The qualitative material was gathered through partic-
ipant observation and is documented in the form of a field diary. In the
workshops, researchers took notes by hand. These notes were reviewed
directly after each workshop and entered into the field diary.
Analysis began with repeated examination of the material, to identify
recurring themes in terms of similarities and differences. This inductive
approach to the material had the informants’ own descriptions and terms
as the starting point. In the next phase, the material was compiled into
two scenes. The first is based on one of the earliest workshops, and the
second is from one of the workshops that took place after 18 months. The
scenes are written according to a method used in action research. It is
based on analyses and discussions in the research team rather than exclu-
sively representing the individual researcher, but the subjectivity is inten-
tional and is comparable to field notes, a practice report, or a page from a
diary, in which the researcher’s encounter with the field is essential. The
method includes a phenomenological analysis and is not an attempt to
“objectively” describe what takes place overall. The descriptions are lim-
ited to certain specific cases, as they were actually perceived, without any
form of analysis or filter. The scenes thus illustrate different aspects of the

328
 f r o m r e s i s ta n c e to c h a n g e

organizational change. The workshop participants are diverse and react

differently. Some are sceptical to the FRONT project, while others are
more positive. Looking at this from an action and innovation perspec-
tive, the first scene is “before” and the second “after” the management
team’s somewhat new way of acting after the management development
described in Chapter 10.
In the analysis, we will focus on whether the gender equality work
within the faculty’s management team has had any effect within the
organization. We do this by analyzing whether resistance against gender
equality has increased or decreased during the workshops for doctoral
student supervisors.

Two Workshops
So, what does resistance to gender equality work in the organization look
like? We describe it through two workshops for PhD supervisors, one
early and the other late in the project.

Scene One: A Failed Workshop?

It is 11:00 a.m. and time to start the workshop. There should be 24 men
and six women in the room, but several places around the six tables
are still empty. I am annoyed. It is impossible to divide participants
into groups with so many absent. For instance, the women were sup-
posed to be in twos in the groups, but I now see that two of them are
alone at their tables. Also, one table has only three people, and another
only two. So, they have to be moved in order to make the discussion
groups large enough. Why did so many people enrol and then just not
turn up?
The workshop starts with asking the participants to evaluate state-
ments about women and men doctoral students, individually, before dis-
cussing them with their group. The group discussions are subdued and
lethargic, except at one table, where one of the men draws a Gaussian
curve, while explaining with gusto that average intelligence is the same
in male and female groups. However, there are more men than women at

329
chapter 11

either end of the Gaussian curve – those with really high and low intelli-
gence. Since universities want to recruit the most intelligent candidates,
and men are more highly represented in that category, this gives rise to a
natural gender imbalance. I consider interrupting the discussion. What
does he actually mean? He is implying that the women in his group are
less intelligent than he and the other men are. Moreover, he dismisses the
entire purpose of the workshop by claiming that gender imbalance is not
due to inequality. But I choose to stay out of the discussion, and make
a note to myself to address the subject when all the participants gather
for a plenary discussion. However, to summarize this plenary discus-
sion, only a few participants can see any major gender differences in how
doctoral students are evaluated and treated. One group says that female
doctoral students are perhaps a bit more focused on taking responsibil-
ity for social relations in the research team than their male colleagues.
Neither the man who drew the Gaussian curve nor any other participants
in his group mention differences in intelligence as a possible cause of gen-
der imbalance.
A few minutes into my lecture on research on gender in academic orga-
nizations, a man raises his hand and asks if all the studies I will cite were
carried out in the USA. When I reply that many of the studies are based
on empirical data from the USA, but that I will also include studies from
Norway and Sweden, he says that studies from the USA cannot tell us
anything about what it is like at a university in such a gender equal coun-
try as Norway. The man sitting beside him agrees, and points out that
the studies are also old. He has noticed years such as 2009 and 2012 in
the references. After proceeding with my lecture, I get another question
about the quality of the studies I cite. A male participant asks if there are
any quantitative studies within gender research? Most of my references
are interview studies, and interviews only show what individuals think
about things, he adds. When I explain my views on qualitative research,
and try to get the group to discuss a few of the results I have described by
asking if this feels familiar to any of the participants, a compact silence
fills the room. Finally, a male participant breaks the silence by asking if
there is no recent material from Oslo University. In that case, it might be
interesting to discuss it.

330
 f r o m r e s i s ta n c e to c h a n g e

The lecture is followed by a coffee break. At the sink in the ladies’

restroom, I am approached by a woman participant. I was looking for
you, she says. I just want you to know that it is not as gender equal in our
department as it may seem when we talk. I recognize practically every-
thing you described in your lecture. When I ask her why she did not say
anything about that in her group, she is quiet. Then she says that she
could not face the discussion this would provoke.
I have prepared a case study for the participants to discuss in groups
after coffee. They can choose from four cases and talk about as many of
them as they have time for, and in any order. The case studies are:

A. A supervisor who is planning to attend a conference with a doctoral

student of the opposite sex. When colleagues find out, they ask if
the relationship is purely professional.
B. Choosing between a woman and a man for a doctoral student posi-
tion, with suggestions that the woman is likely to become pregnant,
in a project that is already running late.
C. An assistant supervisor finds out from the woman doctoral student
that the main supervisor (in charge of the research project where
the assistant supervisor is working) makes negative remarks about
women researchers.
D. What consideration a supervisor should give to a doctoral student’s
personal situation when distributing tasks.

I go round the tables and listen, answer questions and occasionally com-
ment. At one table, one of the men asks a woman participant in his group
for her opinion. Has she ever seen or experienced any gender inequality
at Oslo University? She answers evasively that she does not feel discrimi-
nated against, but has heard from colleagues at foreign universities that it
is hard combining family life with a research career. Everyone at the table
nods and says that this is probably the case. They agree that a research
career and family life are hard to combine for both women and men, even
in equal opportunity Norway. But in view of the competition for inter-
national jobs, publication and research funding, that cannot be changed.
At another table, one of the men asks if the others agree that there are

331
chapter 11

definite differences between how female and male managers work. In his
experience, women managers are less strategic than men, and often get
stuck on details. Before the other group members have time to respond,
he adds that this is his personal experience, and may come down to the
specific female and male managers as individuals. No discussion ensues
in the group. Someone comments that it sounds familiar to him, but that
his experience is also just personal, and the others remain silent.
When we gather to discuss the case studies, it turns out no groups
chose case A. When I ask why, they answer that the situation is too far-
fetched. That sort of thing would never happen at Oslo University. Case
B is also dismissed, with the comment that if a project has no room for
a doctoral student to take parental leave for a year, then the planning is
wrong. As for case C, the groups that chose it describe the formal chan-
nels available for a doctoral student to lodge a complaint and possibly
change supervisor. This is not a matter for the assistant supervisor, and
thus this is another wrongly-constructed case study. Most groups chose
case D. They agree unanimously that a supervisor should not meddle in
the doctoral students’ private life. All doctoral students should have equal
opportunities, such as being invited to participate in conferences, and
deciding for themselves whether or not they can attend.
The workshop concludes with one of the deans explaining why the fac-
ulty wants to address gender equality. Participants have no questions and
the workshop ends. As I go round the room tidying up papers and coffee
cups, the woman, who was asked in her group whether there was any
gender inequality in her faculty, comes up to me and says she has some-
thing to tell me. Her research team was recruiting a doctoral student and
there were many qualified applicants. A few days ago, when they were
interviewing, she noticed that women and men were judged according to
different standards. That study you described in your lecture, that is just
what it is like here too, she says. We referred to the men as competent,
and the women as ambitious and hard-working, and even if the comment
was immediately followed by an apology, it was also mentioned that it
was very likely that the women would take parental leave for a year or
so. When I ask why she did not speak up at the workshop, she replies
that when she had mentioned it in the recruitment committee, everyone

332
 f r o m r e s i s ta n c e to c h a n g e

had just brushed it off and said it was not true. Now she was reluctant to
revisit that discussion.
A few days after the workshop, I receive an e-mail from a woman par-
ticipant, requesting a meeting. When we meet, she says the workshop
was unsettling. She felt that as a woman she was expected to be able to
describe in which ways the faculty was gender unequal and what should
be done to make it more equal. That her role in the group was to prove to
the men that gender inequality existed.

Scene Two: Will the Discussion Never End?

The workshop is about to begin, and I am nervous. Nearly 18 months have
passed since the last time, and so much has happened in the project. My
introduction will be entirely different, and I wonder how the participants
will react to it. Will they all get up and leave when I tell them that the
management team claims that gender imbalance in the faculty is at least
partly due to gender inequality? After all, I do not have any results yet
from studies carried out in the faculty.
I welcome everyone and talk about the gender equality project that
this workshop is part of. I also say that this is the first workshop after
an interval of more than a year. I then go on to explain that the faculty’s
management team, during five workshops days, have been working on
gender equality in the same way that they will be working today. The
management team, like them, were aware of a gender imbalance in the
faculty. Some departments, for instance, have few women professors, even
though most of the students have been women for a long time, while oth-
ers have research teams that are predominantly female or male. Based on
research on academia from the perspective of gender equality, the man-
agement team came to the conclusion that this imbalance was at least
partially caused by gender inequality in the organization. They decided
to proceed according to the research perspective of “doing gender” and
a method based on Joan Acker’s research,4 to examine where and how
inequality is done at the faculty. The results from these studies are not
available yet, but will be reported as soon as possible. When I finish off
by asking if anyone has any questions or comments regarding what I just

333
chapter 11

said, everyone is quiet. But most participants look interested, and no one
seems to want to leave.
The workshop continues along the same lines as before. Participants
are asked to comment on and discuss a number of statements about
doctoral students, they listen to lectures on gender equality in academic
organizations, and they discuss case studies. No matter what part of
the programme it is, discussions become lively as soon as participants
are divided into smaller groups. Not everyone takes part, but more
than half of the participants at each table seem to get very involved.
As I move around the room, I hear them sharing personal experiences
with each other. For instance, one says that he feels it is much easier to
talk about things while going for a walk. The discussion is much more
focused than at a meeting in the office. But he does not know how to
do this with his women doctoral students. Can he go for a walk with
them outside the university campus? Another says that he wants to go
away for a weekend to write with his doctoral students. But he feels that
would be difficult in a mixed-gender group. A third asks the others for
advice, explaining that he had had knee surgery and could not get to
work and had invited a woman doctoral student to his place so they
could work together. He goes on to say that even though they sat in his
study all the time, and did not talk about anything personal or private,
he would nevertheless not have dared do that if his wife had not been
home the whole time.
The discussion moves back and forth. Some say that all supervision
should take place at the university. Neither female nor male doctoral
students should be exposed to situations that could be perceived as
informal, and consequently uncomfortable. Others say that even if you
skip writing weekends and walks, academic life unavoidably includes
informal situations. Not inviting your doctoral students along to the
pub after a conference dinner would be the same as not sharing your
network with them. One supervisor says he never thinks about gen-
der. He has never experienced any awkwardness with regard to invit-
ing both female and male doctoral students to his informal networks.
Another describes how he tells his women doctoral students that it is
okay if they do not want to join him for dinner after the conference.

334
 f r o m r e s i s ta n c e to c h a n g e

He wants them to know that they do not have to be good company

over dinner in order to get good supervision or a great start to their
academic career.
The women participants are in the minority, as usual. They do not
participate as actively as some of the men in the discussion, and they
often describe a more formal approach to supervision. They might pos-
sibly have coffee in the university cafeteria with a doctoral student. But
this would be an exception, since 99 per cent of supervision takes place
in the office. Someone adds that drinking beer at conferences as a way
of building networks is overrated. The important thing is to make con-
tact during the sessions themselves, when research is actually being dis-
cussed. Another describes her experiences as a doctoral student, how she,
as the only woman in a group of men, often felt uncomfortable in infor-
mal situations.
When it is time for a coffee break, I am happy and relieved. This work-
shop is going so much better than the ones a year and a half earlier. I am
alone in the classroom, making a few adjustments to the course mate-
rial, when one of the women participants enters and approaches me. She
says she wants my advice. She was recently appointed head of division,
and discovered that teaching duties are unevenly distributed. A few of
the older male professors teach hardly any classes, even though this is
included in their job description. When she mentioned this at a group
meeting and presented a fairer proposal, the men who would have had
to teach more protested. Especially one, who was very rude to me, she
says. But nobody spoke up against him. They let him battle it out with
me. I know exactly what you should do, I tell her. I was planning to let
you all work on case studies after the break. But forget about the case
studies in your group and discuss this instead! You will get lots of useful
tips from the others in your group. No, I cannot do that, she says. That is
too personal. When the other participants return to the room, she takes
her seat.
After a lively discussion about the case studies, it is time for the dean to
round off. The participants continue to be talkative. For instance, some-
one asks a question about how to give career advice to doctoral students
and receives a concrete answer.

335
chapter 11

From Resistance to Communication

We have chosen to interpret the above scenes as development phases –
before and after an intervention. This is a useful starting point, we feel,
but are aware that a process of change naturally has both intermediary
phases and different trajectories for groups and individuals. In effect, one
and the same scene includes various understandings and behaviours in
relation to gender, represented by different participants. We can discern
clear tendencies in the scenes – while the material also contains wide
variations.

Expressions of Resistance
The first of the two scenes above is characterized by various forms of
passive and active resistance (Pincus, 2002). The importance of gender
equality work is not openly challenged. Most of the resistance is passive
and is expressed mainly by remaining silent and not participating in
workshop discussions. Enrolling for the workshop but not turning up
could be interpreted as another form of passive resistance. There were
also several forms of active or repressive resistance (Amundsdotter
et al., 2015; Pincus, 2002). These were revealed primarily through
explicit scepticism to the workshop contents and its leader. Resistance
is frequently presented as if it were a case of purely objective or subject-
related protests. The nature of these protests is often twofold: that gen-
der equality is important but the workshop is not good enough; that
the lecture theme is interesting but the lecturer lacks knowledge; or
that it is interesting to discuss supervision from a gender perspective
but the case studies are irrelevant. At the core is a mixed message,
in which counter-arguments are converted into factual issues rather
than presented straightforwardly. Gender equality is described as
being important, but it is inferred that the workshop leader has not
prepared properly. The research is considered too American, too old
or based on the wrong methods. It is relevant to question whether the
results of empirical studies in other academic environments can be
used to understand the situation at one’s own faculty. But when those
who raise the question are unwilling to discuss the studies, they are,

336
 f r o m r e s i s ta n c e to c h a n g e

in effect, questioning the lecture itself. Resistance is presented in the

guise of a factual discussion.
These mixed messages can also be seen to indicate that resistance adapts
to the process of change (Benschop & Verloo, 2006; Kirton & Greene,
2000, 2016; Lombardo & Mergaert, 2013; Pincus, 2002). It is clear that the
participants are aware that it is wrong to be opposed to gender equality,
and this influences how they formulate their counter-arguments. They do
not, for instance, question the purpose of the workshop, only its execu-
tion. Resistance is not aimed at the faculty management and its decision
to improve gender equality in the faculty. Instead, it targets a lower level
in the organization, the gender equality project and its activities.
The discussion about how it is hard to combine a career in academia
with family responsibilities reveals yet another form of resistance, what
Amundsdotter et al. (2015) call regulating. Workshop participants claim
they cannot do anything about the inequality that may arise because
women take more responsibility for their families than men. This is a
private choice that is made in the family, and the employer or supervisor
neither should nor could get involved. Moreover, the overall issue, that
an academic career is hard to consolidate with family responsibilities, is
beyond their control. The university operates in international competi-
tion. The prerequisites for an academic career are determined interna-
tionally and consist of “objectively” founded stipulations that the faculty
has to comply with and cannot influence. The concept of a systemic prob-
lem within one’s own organization is redirected towards a discussion of
other issues and other systems.
If we interpret scene one in relation to hegemonic masculinity (see
Connell, 1995; Connell & Messersmith, 2005; Messersmith, 2015), a new
hegemony clearly emerges. Some of the male participants openly defend
the existing gender order, by devaluating both the workshop and the
workshop leader. Their attempt to gain support from the other men is
successful, in that none of them object.
Moreover, dismissing three out of the four case studies as unrealistic
can also be seen as a form of resistance. Change requires a shared under-
standing of where and how gender inequality is created in the organiza-
tion (Rönnblom, 2011; Tollin, 2011). The non-existent discussion of the

337
chapter 11

case studies showed that this shared understanding was prevented from
developing. In the workshop described in scene two, the male supervisors
said that they found it more problematic to supervise their female doc-
toral students. In the first workshop, the participants emphatically denied
that this was a problem. Likewise, the participants in the first workshop
avoided discussing problems relating to the doctoral students taking
parental leave, or that their colleagues had made sexist statements. As all
subjects were discussed energetically in the workshop in scene two, this
dismissal can be interpreted more as resistance to the workshop and the
gender equality work it is part of, than as a conviction that the problems
did not exist.

Constructing Identity
Whereas the workshop in scene one is characterized by various forms of
resistance, the resistance described in scene two is less pronounced. Both
women and men participate in the often lively discussions and contribute
many personal examples. Gender inequality is no longer seen as some-
thing that exists elsewhere or only concerns women. The issue has been
moved to one’s own organization, and is about relationships between
women and men.
However, although major changes occurred from scene one to scene
two, there are still differences in how the women and men participate.
Whereas the men dare to share their personal experiences, the women
more often choose to remain silent. A few of the men are very open and
share deeply personal experiences, while most are active in the discus-
sions but slightly more restrained with their own experiences. None of
the women participate as actively in the discussions, and all are more
hesitant in describing personal experiences. When the workshop leader
asks a woman participant to tell the group about her leadership dilemma,
the woman responds that it is too personal. The women also describe a
more formal approach to doctoral students and supervision, compared
to the men.
As individuals in an organization, we deal with sensemaking,5 that is,
understanding what is expected of us and what scope of action we have

338
 f r o m r e s i s ta n c e to c h a n g e

(Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). Critical sensemaking theory emphasizes

the importance of acknowledging how surrounding structures influence
the construction of identity that sensemaking entails (Mills et al., 2010).
Individuals in an organization are expected to act in various ways, and
this consequently limits the individual’s prospects for identity construc-
tion, and also means that certain identity constructs are rewarded, while
others are ignored or counteracted (Acker, 1999; Mills et al., 2010).
Gender equality work affects how individuals perceive themselves and
their identity as women or men, by highlighting and examining how
identity construction is done and influenced by surrounding structures
(Acker, 1999; Hård, 2004; Jutterdal, 2008).
We have chosen to base the workshops and seminars in the FRONT
project on a revised version of Acker’s model6 (1999), with four approaches
to exploring how inequality is done in an organization: structure, cul-
ture, interaction and identity work. This means that part of the task has
been to examine how the identity construct of researcher is affected by
structures, culture and interaction. In effect, the participating research-
ers are expected to examine how the perception of them as women or
men has impacted and continues to impact their place and latitude in the
organization.
At the workshop described in scene one, it is obvious that several of
the women participants are reluctant to discuss gender inequality, even
though they see that the organization is unequal. Some, for instance,
seek out the workshop leader during the break or after the workshop
has ended, instead of sharing their experiences with the group. The
women are quieter than the men even in the workshop in scene two,
when it comes to talking about personal experiences, and again they
contact the workshop leader during a break. The women’s reluctance
to describe their experiences of gender inequality can be interpreted as
a fear of exploring the identity construct of a female researcher. They
want to be seen as competent researchers. To describe their experience
of gender inequality means defining themselves as women, and thus as
members of a subordinate group, which is associated with feelings of
shame (e.g., Ethelberg, 1985; Wahl, 1992). If the women do not perceive
woman and competent researcher as a possible identity construct,

339
chapter 11

this makes it hard for them to share their experiences of gender

inequality.
Part of men’s identity construction consists in belonging to a superior
group. In the second workshop, they describe, for instance, an imbalance
of power in relation to their female doctoral students. A factor that is not
mentioned, however, is that their superior position may have had positive
effects for them as individuals, for instance by benefitting their career. A
critical scrutiny of the identity construct of man and researcher would
entail questioning their own competence.
Thus, sharing and reflecting on one’s own experiences within a
gender-unequal organization can be unfavourable to one’s own iden-
tity construct. For women, seeing themselves as a subordinate group
also means seeing themselves as part of a group that is not expected to
achieve as well as the superior group, and therefore does not get equal
career opportunities in the day-to-day activities of the organization.
Conversely, for men, this entails seeing themselves as members of a
superior group, who get more and better career opportunities than they
deserve, since competence is regarded as an effect of their superiority.
For both women and men, an identity construct that acknowledges gen-
der inequality in the organizational structure is also an identity con-
struct that is hard to consolidate with competence.

Management’s Role in Gender Equality Work:

Responsibility for Describing the Problem
There were major differences in participation and discussions in the work-
shops from scene one to scene two. The forms of resistance had weakened
and changed, and the active resistance that was obvious in scene one was
totally gone in scene two. More women shared their experiences of gen-
der inequality, even though they were less forthcoming than the men.
The purpose of the workshops for doctoral student supervisors was
to increase participants’ awareness of gender inequality in the organiza-
tion. In addition to lectures, the workshops included exercises that pro-
vided a framework for participants’ discussions. The lectures offered a
theoretical framework for how gender is done in organizations, which

340
 f r o m r e s i s ta n c e to c h a n g e

participants were expected to utilize in the exercises to analyze and sys-

tematize their own experiences and observations, and thereby become
more aware. The examples from empirical studies presented in the lec-
tures were also intended to be useful to the participants when they exam-
ined their own organization. New knowledge and awareness, and above
all hearing the examples and reflections of others, were expected to alert
participants to elements of their everyday life that may otherwise have
gone unnoticed. While a personal episode is often regarded as an excep-
tion, hearing that several others have had the same experience helps us
see a pattern. Sharing experiences in a structured way in the workshop
exercises should improve the participants’ awareness of gender inequality
in the organization.7
Why, then, is resistance so much stronger in the workshop in scene one
than in scene two? The workshops had the same structure, mixing lec-
tures and exercises. What had changed in the eighteen months that had
passed? We will start by examining the underlying reasons for resistance
in scene one.
The workshops provided exercises and models, but participants were
expected to fill them with descriptions from their own lives. These could
be everyday situations where they had been unfairly treated or judged,
and where they, in turn had treated and judged others’ gender unequally.
To be in a position to share their experiences, gender inequality and the
participants’ various positions in relation to it, their identity construc-
tions, needed to be made visible. This requires women to identify with
a subordinate group, and men to identify with a superior group. Even if
women and men as individuals relate to, and are influenced by, struc-
tures of gender inequality in different ways, sharing their experiences of
inequality divides them into two groups, subordinate women and supe-
rior men.
According to critical power theory, a subordinate group is in a better
position than the superior group to see both the mechanisms of subordi-
nation and the superior group’s privileges.9 Thus, the women participants
in the workshop exercises should generally be in a better position than the
men to give examples and clarifications of the effects of gender inequal-
ity. However, although the women participants could be more aware of

341
chapter 11

gender inequalities than men, they are expected to say the opposite. The
only explanation that does not challenge the existing power structures or
identity constructions is that the organization is gender equal (Ahmed,
2012; Hård, 2004; Jutterdal, 2008). This, therefore, is the only version
that is comfortable for the organization and its members (Wahl, 1992).
As members of the subordinate group, women can free the organization
from demands for change by affirming that gender equality has already
been achieved (Wahl, 1992).
The discussions in the first workshop scene can be interpreted as resis-
tance to being divided into a superior and subordinate group respectively,
and to change in general. When one woman is asked about her experi-
ences of gender inequality, she answers that she has no such experiences,
that is, that no change is necessary.
In the 18 months that passed between scenes one and two, the manage-
ment team had worked with sensegiving10 (see Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991)
in relation to gender equality, by describing the organization as gender
unequal and defining this inequality as a problem. The faculty is charac-
terized by gender imbalance, and management has intervened to ensure
that this is acknowledged as a gender equality issue. In other words, man-
agement has challenged the prevailing order, and balanced the staff’s con-
tributions, so that those who experience the problem of gender inequality
are no longer the ones who have to point it out.
When management acknowledges the lack of gender equality as a seri-
ous problem, it is no longer up to the individual to decide whether the
organization is gender equal or not, or whether or not this is a problem.
Since defining the organization as unequal, and stating that something
needs to change, is to challenge the prevailing order, both in terms of the
existing power structures and identity constructions, those who continue
to argue that nothing needs to change often win. This reveals the orga-
nization’s inertia (see, for instance, Lombardo & Mergaert, 2013; Pincus,
2002; Holter et al., 2005). When management argues for change, this
alters the power balance in the discussion in favour of those who, like
management, perceive the gender inequality and want to change it.
As described above, the workshop in scene two begins with a sum-
mary of management’s views on, and measures to promote, gender

342
 f r o m r e s i s ta n c e to c h a n g e

equality. When management decisively takes responsibility for describ-

ing the organization as gender unequal – and pro-change – this should
impact the framework for discussions in the participant groups. For
instance, it reduces the pressure on women participants to free the
organization from the need to change, under the pretext that equality
has already been achieved. Likewise, the burden of proof is transferred
from those who claim that the organization is gender unequal, to those
who deny gender inequality. We do not interpret the change that took
place between scenes one and two as exclusively, or maybe not even
predominantly, the effect of the gender equality work pursued in the
organization by the faculty management. The two occasions had dif-
ferent participants, and one or more strong personalities can set the
tone for an entire group discussion.11 In the 18 months between the
workshops, social debate also changed, and this may have contrib-
uted to the group atmosphere. Other possible causes could be that the
workshop leaders had also developed, and thereby contributed to the
change in the discussions. However, our empirical studies show that
management’s involvement may have led to the participants becoming
freer in their interpretation of events and situations, and thereby see-
ing things in new ways. The new group atmosphere could be linked to
the management describing gender inequality as a systemic problem,
challenging the notion that the numerical gender imbalance in certain
positions is not a problem or simply the effect of women and men mak-
ing different choices and priorities with regard to family and career.
Management has not only addressed sensegiving by clearly stating that
gender inequality is a problem. They have also utilized tools for analyz-
ing the organization. As described in the introduction to chapter three, a
processual approach to gender, meaning seeing gender as an integral part
of everything that goes on in an organization (e.g., Acker, 1990; Butler,
2006, 1990; West & Zimmerman, 1987), underpinned the project. This
approach is often referred to as “doing gender”. An elaborated version of
Acker’s model (Acker, 1990, 1994) was applied to all project activities. The
model helped participants to systematize their observations, which, in
turn, enabled them to discover patterns and structures in everyday oper-
ations within the organization. The chosen pedagogical method of letting

343
chapter 11

participants make their own discoveries, combined with listening to and

reflecting on the discoveries, observations or research made by others,
and together analyzing and highlighting patterns from different angles,
can also be seen as a model.
The fact that management not only described inequality as a problem,
but actively addressed the problem utilizing methods of working with
change, is also likely to have influenced the atmosphere in the group.
Management was able to show where and how inequality is done – not
in every separate case, or in every research team, but through examples
from their own organization. Since management’s approach is based on
a processual perspective on gender, and Acker’s model for examining
where and how gender inequality is done in the organization, both the
approach and method are legitimized by the organization. The problem –
gender inequality – is not dumped on the workshop participants with
instructions to do something about it. Instead, they are provided with an
approach in the form of a processual perspective on gender and tools to
achieve change, in the form of Acker’s model.

Conclusion
The FRONT project included workshops for doctoral student supervi-
sors. Participants displayed strong resistance during the first workshops.
In subsequent workshops, group discussions showed that a change had
taken place. The forms of resistance had abated, and both women and
men participated in the often lively discussions and contributed many
personal examples. For both women and men, sharing and reflecting on
experiences of gender inequality entails positioning themselves accord-
ing to gender: as subordinate women and superior men. This is an iden-
tity construction that both men and women find hard to reconcile with
their self-image as competent researchers, and it therefore awakens strong
resistance. Moreover, gender equality work also challenges the organiza-
tion’s power structures, and generates resistance. If management changes
the framework for sharing experiences by establishing that the organiza-
tion is gender unequal, and provides an approach and tools for examin-
ing how gender inequality is done, resistance weakens.

344
 f r o m r e s i s ta n c e to c h a n g e

References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations.
Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002
Acker, J. (1994). The gender regime of Swedish banks. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 10(2), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-5221(94)90015-9
Acker, J. (1999). Gender and organizations. In J. S. Chafetz (Ed.), Handbook of the
sociology of gender. Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publisher.
Acker, J. (2000). Gendered contradictions in organizational equity projects.
Organization, 7(4), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840074007
Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke
University Press.
Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a feminist life. Duke University Press.
Amundsdotter, E., Ericson, M., Jansson, U. & Linghag, S. (2015). Motstånd och
strategier i jämställdhetsarbete. Karlstad Universitet.
Andersson, S., Berglund, K., Gunnarsson, E. & Sundin, E. (Eds.). (2012). Promoting
innovation: Policies, practices and procedures. VINNOVA.
Bacchi, C. L. & Eveline. J. (2010). Mainstreaming politics: Gendering practices and
feminist theory. University of Adelaide Press.
Benschop, Y. & Verloo, M. (2006). Sisyphus’ sisters: Can gender mainstreaming
escape the genderedness of organizations? Journal of Gender Studies, 15(1), 19–33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09589230500486884
Cockburn, C. (1991). In the way of women. Macmillian.
Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Polity Press.
Connell, R. W. & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking
the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0891243205278639
Ethelberg, E. (1985). Självkänsla kontra realitet – et dilemma för psykologin och för
kvinnorna. Tidskrift för genusvetenskap, (1), 4–15. https://ojs.ub.gu.se/index.php/
tgv/article/view/1401
Franzén, C., Lärkeryd, P., Sjölander, S. & Borgström, J. (2010). Det lönar sig.
Genusmedveten ledning och styrning i verkstadsindustri. Näringslivets
ledarskapsakademi. https://www.ledarskapsakademi.se/la/attachment/
detlonarsig.pdf
Fraser, N. (2011). Rättvisans mått: Texter om omfördelning, erkännande och
representation i en globaliserad värld. Atlas.
Gioia, D. A. & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic
change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448. https://doi.
org/10.1002/smj.4250120604

345
chapter 11

Haugsvær, S. (2003, 11 June). – Likestilling med vikeplikt [Interview with Hege Skjeie
and Mari Teigen]. Forskning.no. https://forskning.no/seksualitet-demokrati-
likestilling/likestilling-med-vikeplikt/1069871
Holter, Ø. G. (Ed.). (2007). Män i rörelse. Jämställdhet, förändring och social
innovation i Norden. Gidlunds forlag.
Holter, Ø. G., Riesenfeld, V. & Scambor, E. (2005). “We don’t have anything like
that here!” Organizations, men and gender equality. In R. Puchert M. Gartner &
S. Hoyng (Eds.), Work changes gender (pp. 73–104). Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Hård, U. (2004). Jämställdhet i förändringsprocesser och organisasjonsutveckling
eller «Det tar bara lite längre tid än jag trodde»: En utvärdering av
jämställdhetsprojektet GenuX ved Länsstyrelsen Gävleborg under åren 2002–2003.
FoU-Centrum Söderhamn.
Höök, P. (2001). Stridspiloter i vida kjolar: Om ledarutveckling och jämställdhet
[Doctoral dissertation, Handelshögskolan Stockholm]. https://ex.hhs.se/
dissertations/221646-FULLTEXT01.pdf
Jutterdal, A. (2008). Jämställdhetsarbete – en utmaning för kommuner och landsting!
En kunskapsöversikt. Sveriges kommuner och landsting.
Kirton, G. & Greene, A. (2016). The dynamics of managing diversity (4th ed.).
Butterworth Heinemann. (First published in 2000.)
Lindholm, K. (Ed.). (2011). Jämställdhet i verksamhetsutveckling. Studentlitteratur.
Linghag, S., Ericson, M., Amundsdotter, E. & Jansson, U. (2016). I och med
motstånd: Förändringsaktörers handlingsutrymme och strategier i jämställdhets-
och mångfaldsarbete Tidskrift för genusvetenskap, 37(3), 7–28. https://ojs.ub.gu.se/
index.php/tgv/article/view/3667
Lombardo, E., Meier, P. & Verloo, M. (Eds). (2009). The discursive politics of gender
equality: Stretching, bending and policymaking. Routledge.
Lombardo, E. & Mergaert, L. (2013). Gender mainstreaming and resistance to gender
training: A framework for studying implementation. NORA, 21(4), 296–311.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740.2013.851115
Magnusson, E., Rönnblom, M. & Silius, H. (Eds). (2008). Critical studies of gender
equalities: Nordic dislocations, dilemmas and contraditions. Makadam.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (2015). Masculinities in the making: From the local to the global.
Rowman & Littlefield.
Mills, J. H., Thurlow, A. & Mills, A. J. (2010). Making sense of sensemaking:
The critical sensemaking approach. Qualitative Research in Organizations
and Management: An International Journal, 5(2), 182–195. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17465641011068857
Nilson, L. & Trollvik, M. (2011). Program för hållbar jämställdhet – resultatrapport för
perioden 2008–2010. Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting.

346
 f r o m r e s i s ta n c e to c h a n g e

NOU. (2012: 15). Politikk for likestilling [Skjeie-utvalget]. Barne- og

familiedepartementet. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2012-15/
id699800/
Pincus, I. (1997). Manligt motstånd och ambivalens till jämställdhetsreformer.
Kvinnovetenskapligt Forums Skriftserie nr. 5. Örebro University.
Pincus, I. (2002). The politics of gender equality policy: A study of implementation
and non-implementation in three Swedish municipalities [Doctoral dissertation,
Örebro University]. DiVA. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-8
Puchert, R., Gärtner, M. & Höyng, S. (Eds). (2005). Work changes gender: Men and
equality in the transition of labour forms. Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Rönnblom, M. (2011). Hva är problemet? Konstruktioner av jämställdhet i svensk
politik. Tidskrift för Genusvetenskap, 2(3), 35–55. https://ojs.ub.gu.se/index.php/
tgv/article/view/1001
Skjeie, H. & Teigen, M. (2003). Menn imellom. Gyldendal Akademisk.
SOU. (2003: 16). Mansdominans i förändring: Om ledningsgrupper och styrelser.
Fritzes.
Spets, H. (2012). Power, resistance and gender equality work. In K. Lindholm (Ed.),
Gender mainstreaming in public sector organizations: Policy implications and
practical applications. Studentlitteratur.
Tollin, K. (2011). Sida vid sida: En studie av jämställdhetspolitikens genealogi 1971–
2006 [Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University]. DiVA. http://urn.kb.se/
resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-63851
Wahl, A. (1992). Könsstrukturer i organisasjoner: kvinnliga civilekonomers och
civilingenjörers karriärutveckling [Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm School of
Economics].
Wahl, A., Holgersson, C., Höök, P. & Linghag, S. (2018). Det ordnar sig: Teorier om
organisation och kön. Studentlitteratur. (First published in 2001.)
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M. & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of
sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Åberg, M. (Ed.). (2012). Ledarskap för jämställd och hållbar högre utbildning [Project
report]. Karlstad University.

Notes
1 Passive resistance, often in the form of avoidance and ambivalence among the participants in the
organization, is discussed further in Chapters 7, 8 and 9 of this book.
2 See the introduction to Part 3 for a definition of “doing gender”.
3 See the introduction to Part 3 for a more extensive discussion and definition of the various roles
of the researcher.

347
 chapter 11

4 A description of the doing gender perspective and Joan Acker’s model is found in the introdu-
ction to Part 3 of this book.
5 For a more detailed description of the term “sensemaking”, see Chapter 10.
6 The model is described more extensively in the introduction to Part 3 of this book.
7 The perspective on knowledge and how knowledge is developed is the same as for the work with
the management team described in Chapter 10. The premises for the workshop are different,
however. The participants were not acquainted beforehand, which leads to lack of trust in in the
group, and the format is limited to a half-day instead of five full days.
8 Critical theory on power is discussed more extensively in Chapter 8.
9 For a more extensive description of the term “sensegiving”, see Chapter 10.
10 See, for instance, research on decision-making and setting the agenda.

348

View publication stats